(lively music) - Hello, and welcome to this Your Vote 2026 conversation with Matt Dunlap, the Democrat vying to represent Maine's 2nd Congressional District.

His Republican opponent, former Governor Paul LePage, declined our invitation to take part in a debate.

So we're providing Mr.

Dunlap with this opportunity to answer questions about his record and his priorities if elected.

This program is produced in partnership with News Center Maine and the "Portland Press Herald."

Matt Dunlap, welcome.

- Thanks for having me.

- So Matt, you were Maine Secretary of State for 14 years.

Before that, you served in the Maine legislature, you're now the state auditor.

But during one of your recent town halls, I remember a woman said to you that she and her neighbors felt like they still didn't know who Matt Dunlap was.

Former Governor Paul Page doesn't have that problem.

He's very well known.

So my question for you is, is that an impediment to you getting elected in a district that already leans Republican?

- Well, it certainly tells us where we need to do our work on a campaign trail is getting out and meeting people where they are and getting to know who I am a little bit.

People sometimes tell me, "I don't know much about you," or the people I meet say, "I didn't know that you were an elected official."

And I think part of what that indicates is I've never had one of those awful scandals on the front page of the paper either.

I've always sort of burred into the work and done it as best as I can.

And the reality is, that I understand, is that my neighbors have lives.

They're trying to get their kids to soccer practice, they're getting to work, they're running their businesses, and they're not necessarily hanging on the words of everyone in Augusta.

But in the campaign trail, that's where our work has to be, is getting out, meeting people where they are.

That's why you have the town halls.

That's why you have appearances like this, so that people who care about the future of this state can get to know the candidates a little bit better.

And I think we've had a lot of success in doing that.

So I wouldn't call it an impediment.

It is something of a challenge, but it also tells us where we need to do our work.

- So as you know, many Mainers are facing a difficult winter ahead with heating oil hovering around $6 a gallon right now.

Congress can only do so much really when it comes to oil prices and gas prices, but what steps would you support Congress taking if you're elected to immediately provide relief to Mainers on heat oil and other fuel crisis, other fuel costs?

- Well, I think certainly fully funding LIHEAP would be a great first start and maybe expanding that program.

One critical thing that Congress can do is pass a war powers resolution and stop the madness that's going on in Iran, which is what has really been the cost driver for heating oil and gasoline and diesel fuel.

The day before Trump attacked Iran, I gassed up my vehicle.

I think I paid $2.60 a gallon.

And last night I gassed it up, it was about 4.49 a gallon.

So that's a significant increase.

And as you mentioned, heating oil, I've known plenty of people who last year sat under blankets during the day and turned their heat down to 40 degrees because they couldn't afford to heat their homes.

This year is gonna be much, much worse.

Not long ago, I was getting some work done to my truck in the garage and dropping it off and a woman in front of me was talking about how she's trying to get her car inspected and they came in and said, "Well, you need new tires and it's gonna be five or $600."

And I could hear the despair in her voice as she said, "I just put $300 into my heating oil tank," which at these prices is about 50 gallons, maybe heat her home for a couple of weeks.

So that's what people are facing now.

And I think we have a real charge to try to address that problem however we can and as expeditiously and decisively as we can to help Maine people and people across the country.

- But other than LIHEAP and the war powers authorization, are there other things that you think Congress can be doing or should be exploring?

- Well, one of the questions that's come up is, you know, are the oil companies gouging a little bit?

And I think that's something that Congress could investigate.

I think that's probably less of an issue because of all these other attendant causes, but certainly doing what we can to help people who are in really tough situations is something that Congress should be exploring.

And that's not just LIHEAP, it's some of the other things.

I mean, the One Big Beautiful Bill that was passed last year cut a trillion dollars out of Medicaid, it cut $200 billion out of SNAP, especially for people who are on the margins, these cuts are gonna be really, really devastating to them and they're the ones that are gonna be hurting the most with this heating season.

So I think looking at the cost of living across the board is something Congress should be doing and trying to bring some relief to the American people.

- Another top issue for many Mainers here is Social Security.

Maine is the most heavily reliant state in the country on Social Security income because of our older population.

Unless Congress acts within the next six years, Social Security recipients are looking at a cut to their benefits of 20, 22% even.

What steps would you take to prevent Social Security from the Social Security Trust Fund from becoming insolvent?

- Well, there's a couple of things that we can do.

And one of the things to bear in mind, you know, we're a state of working families and people who work hard their whole lives when they exit the workforce, oftentimes the only thing they have to rely on is Social Security.

I talked with a coworker not long about this, long ago, someone who lived down the Midcoast region and talked about by the time they took, finished taking care of their families, paid their rent, made their car payments, they didn't have money left over to put into a retirement plan.

So for most people, Social Security is it.

Now, we talked about the Social Security Trust Fund, probably the best way to not only keep it solvent, but to expand its impact would be to remove the income cap.

Right now contributions are capped at incomes at or below $184,000.

If you make more than $184,000, you pay no more in Social Security contributions.

If we take that cap off, then people who make higher incomes can continue to contribute at that higher level, which will do much to not only make Social Security solvent for the foreseeable future, but then we could really talk about meaningfully expanding the benefit footprint so that people who depend on Social Security can continue to live in dignity.

- So as you mentioned, the cap, the income cap is right now is $184,500, I believe.

- [Matt] Yeah.

- How high do you think it should go?

Should you lift it entirely?

Should it be $500,000?

Should there be a capital?

- Well, I think we'll have to talk about what that is.

I would just as soon see there be no cap, because I think that would really fully expand and make solvent Social Security for the indefinite future.

But, obviously, I'm not the only one that would have a voice in that and we would see what we could negotiate to try to keep that solvency.

I do not support cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

These are some of the things that have been floated in Washington from people who don't depend on Social Security.

So I think we need to keep that in mind.

- And that was one of my next questions, would you support increasing the minimum age?

Right now, it's at 67.

It's stated that since I think 1960.

Americans are living longer.

They're working longer.

But so you don't think that's one option?

- I don't think so, because I think there are so many people who work very physically demanding jobs for a lengthy period of time.

One of the things that we did when I was in the legislature was restore the law enforcement retirement package to 25 years.

And that had been removed during one of the budget crises back in the early '90s.

And one of the organizations that I was a part of removing that, restoring that 25 year retirement for was for our Maine Warden Service.

And part of the operational theory is if you are chasing a night hunter through the woods in the middle of the night and you're above 65 or over 70, the chances of having a health episode do increase.

So we want people to be able to work while they're able-bodied and still want to.

But, you know, people who work in roofing jobs, construction jobs, outdoor physical, heavy physical labor jobs, I don't think we should expect them to work until they're almost 70 before they can draw down the retirements that they've earned, the retirement benefits that they've earned.

- Another top issue that's been debated for years now and continues to be a top issue in this campaign is of course healthcare.

You are a vocal supporter of Medicare for All.

But that phrase, Medicare for All means different things to different people in different groups.

Some want to eventually end private insurance altogether and transition everybody to a entirely government-run plan.

Others support a public option where folks could still potentially keep their insurance or they could go with the government-run plan.

So kind of please explain a little bit more about what your version of Medicare for All is.

- Well, the public option plan is very much similar to what we had under the Affordable Care Act, which is sort of a half measure.

It just basically made insurance more accessible to people who could not afford those larger premiums.

And when the tax subsidies expired at the end of December, something like 30,000 people just in Maine alone could no longer afford their health insurance coverage.

So I think when we talk about healthcare, we need to talk about more than just insurance.

And the models that we see around the world, which some of them are a mixture, some of them have caps on premiums, some models have a partnership between private insurance and the public insurance.

But in every case, the goal is so that the patient doesn't really have to worry about how they take care of themselves.

And I think that's what our goal should be too.

So we say things like Medicare for All because we have a Medicare system that's already in place.

We already pay the assessment.

We have other structures that we could realign, like the Medicaid program, some of the programs under Social Security, some of the programs under the Veterans Administration, for example.

If we reprioritize and reintegrate those things, we can provide some form of universal healthcare coverage so that people don't have to worry about going bankrupt if they happen to have a slip and fall on the ice.

You know, I have a classmate of mine from the university who went to work in Eastern Europe after we got out of graduate school and has dual citizenship, has family there now, comes back a couple times a year, but he developed a cancer a couple years ago and has to go in twice a month for some pretty vigorous treatments.

He pays nothing.

And for me, I mean, you know, I had a minor procedure done to remove a cyst off the back of my head and it was a $12,000 procedure that I had to pay $1,500 and a copay for.

So I think that's the difference.

If people have necessary procedures that they're foregoing, it just puts their health in danger and I don't think that's a fair thing to do in the most wealthy country in the world.

- Obviously this would be a major challenge to transition to something like this.

Do you see it as being a gradual transition or all at once?

And if it's gradual, how do you phase that in?

- Well, I think the first thing we should do is what we can do.

And I think that would be to restore the tax subsidies under the Affordable Care Act that expired last year.

And then take in elements from there.

I mean, obviously, you wouldn't, I would not want to put in a plan that was not carefully vetted and tested and make sure that everything's in place that works.

We don't want to put people in a situation where they think they're getting coverage and it turns out they're not.

So we want to think this through very carefully.

I think it could happen quicker rather than later, simply because like I say, we do have so many of these elements in place.

And one of the things that comes up is how do you pay for it?

That's one of the key questions that people ask when you talk about a universal healthcare system and, you know, the specters of rationing and long waits.

I think those are pretty scary premises that aren't really bearing themselves out in other parts of the world.

You know, like in Australia, for example, you talk about private health insurance, people can keep their private health insurance and they use it for supplemental care or additional care or things that, you know, certainly, when we talk about healthcare, you know, I talked with a fellow in Bangor a couple weeks ago and he said that, you know, he said he hadn't felt well in a while, but that he didn't really dare go to a doctor because he's afraid they'd find something.

He said, "I don't have any insurance to cover anything."

So I think, you know, getting people in the door to have basic checkups, basic medical care, routine care, is something maybe we can do more quickly.

The specialized care or people who need longer term care, I think that's something that we can also work on over the longer term to make sure that we cover everyone.

- Immigration reform?

- [Matt] Yes.

- Maine.

(both laughing) Maine has been in the national spotlight several times during this past year during President Trump's controversial immigration enforcement, first during the surge of ICE agents that we saw back in January, and of course in July with the fatal shooting by an ICE agent of an immigrant.

There are other Democrats, you've been highly critical of ICE.

There are other Democrats who have called for abolishing ICE.

You have not gone that far.

What reforms would you call for short of abolishing the agency?

- Well, first of all, our immigration system is incredibly broken and I don't think anybody really understands how it works.

So we need to make our immigration laws make sense to people, not only people who are trying to come here for whatever reason, to study, to work, to become an American citizen.

And so, that everyone understands what that means, we need more immigration judges to make sure that these people, you know, people who come here under refugee status or asylee status don't linger for years trying to figure out whether or not they can stay here or not.

But in terms of law enforcement, you know, immigrations and customs enforcement is a law enforcement agency.

I've maintained this since the very beginning when the surge first began, is that they need to be accountable to the public.

And we don't see our local law enforcement officers wearing masks and not having their names on uniforms and approaching people with pepper spray and smashing in their car windows.

And we would not tolerate it if that was happening, and we shouldn't tolerate what ICE is doing either.

Yes, we absolutely need to secure our border.

We need to have that safety and security in knowing that America is secure.

But we don't want this.

And I think when we talk about ICE as a law enforcement agency, it does need to be accountable, it needs to be reformed from the top down.

It needs to have better training and also an understanding of what their obligations are to the general public.

You know, I saw footage not long ago where ICE agents, you know, took a man down to the ground, actually hurt the fellow, then they found out he's an American citizen and they left him there.

They drove away.

That's completely unacceptable.

And the shooting of Johann Sebastian Guerrero in Biddeford, a young father who was here legally.

I think, you know, that's what we need to drill on.

And Congress really needs to provide that oversight and they have not.

And this is, I think, the bigger question of what Congress' role is as a co-equal branch of government has completely subordinated themselves to the Trump administration to our detriment.

And I think, you know, we have expectations of law enforcement and they need to meet those expectations.

- On the question of accountability, who would hold these officers accountable?

- Well, it should be the agency itself, but the public through their elected representatives should also hold them accountable.

There should be investigations and hearings.

Look, it happens here in Maine.

An officer's involved in a shooting.

The first thing that happens is that that officer is placed on paid administrative leave and the shooting's investigated to see if it was justified.

That's not happening with ICE.

You know, in some cases, it takes us a long time to find out who the engaged officers even are.

And I think that that is a total lack of accountability.

We don't know really what the training consists of, what the recruitment consists of, and we're spending an awful lot of money for people to feel very, very uneasy about even going to work.

- I want to switch to kind of your approach to the job.

You've described yourself as a progressive and a big part of your campaign has been your willingness to push back against President Trump.

But the past three Democrats elected in the 2nd District, Congressman Golden, Mike Michaud, and John Baldacci, have all been fairly moderate to conservative Democrats.

Do you think that 2nd District voters are willing to support someone who has called himself a progressive in the past?

- Well, I think, you know, when we talk about the ideas that we've discussed, like Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare for All, universal healthcare, that type of thing, those are progressive ideas because we've never done them.

Social Security is probably the most progressive thing this country's ever done, but now it's part of the fabric of our society.

So, you know, the work that I've done over 30 years in the legislature as Secretary of State, I mean, I've worked with everyone across the aisle, both sides, you know, finding ways to find agreement, and that's my record.

The disadvantage of using labels like moderate, progressive, conservative, is it does tend to pigeonhole people.

And, you know, I've always believed what I believed.

I've always supported these types of solutions to our societal problems.

But, you know, my time in the legislature, they called me a moderate.

And I think the reason why is because I was chair of the Fish and Wildlife Committee and I went deer hunting every fall.

To them, that was a distinction.

But I tend to prefer to refer to myself as Matt Dunlap and that, you know, the people I'm talking to are my neighbors and my friends, and I want to represent them and their interests and try to find solutions to the problems that they can't seem to get out from under.

And that's, I think, the key philosophy that I carry forward.

- One issue where I think you probably would describe yourself as a moderate is on the issue of guns.

You often describe yourself as a lifelong sportsman.

Between your two stints as Secretary of State, you actually served as Executive Director of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, which is arguably the most influential organization here in the state on not only hunting and fishing issues, but also on 2nd Amendment and gun owners' rights.

So I have a, I'd like to get your position on a few gun control issues or gun issues.

Would you support a ban on assault weapons?

- I would not.

And, you know, we went through this back in the late '90s and I know that people feel very strongly about this.

I will say along that line, that the core issues around gun violence are those we don't really have a full handle on, and we need to get down to the origins of what's causing these spasms of violence that didn't exist when I was younger, you know, did not exist for much of our history until the last few decades.

And, you know, we need to understand what's causing that.

When you had the assault weapons ban of 1994, that was on the books for 10 years, the net effect was you could still get them.

You know, when you buy a gun, there's only two kinds of guns you can buy from a licensed dealer, and that's either a handgun or a long gun.

They don't distinguish between a single shot shotgun and an AR-15.

So we don't really know how many of them are out there, but there's no inventory kept of that because of the way ATF keeps its records.

What happened was that people could still buy them and sell them privately, they just became very, very expensive.

That's what really happened.

And the pace of gun violence didn't really slow down that much.

So I would not support that.

You know, Maine has such a strong sporting tradition and so many of my friends use them for target shooting, long range target shooting.

They build their own different platforms for hunting and other uses, and they use them perfectly legally.

So that wouldn't really solve any problems when you get down to the issue of gun violence, I don't believe.

- How about a ban on large capacity magazines?

Would you support that?

- Well, you know, I have not supported that and I'd have a hard time supporting it simply because I know going back in my own knowledge of how to use a firearm is how proficient somebody is with their firearm, depending on how effective it is, regardless of the capacity of the magazine, whether it's a three-round clip, five-round clip, 10-round, or 20-round, or 30-round, is really how proficient the user is as to how they can use their firearm.

That's the issue, not the size of the magazine.

- But when you're talking about some of these high profile, you know, very powerful and AR-15 style gun with a large capacity, something like that can do extreme amounts of damage.

And they often say that the shooters are most often interrupted when they're trying to change out magazines.

So you don't see a benefit in limiting that size?

- I don't think it would necessarily solve the problem.

And again, I mean, you know, we don't have any type of system to track magazines.

I mean, magazines are actually fairly simple to manufacture if you have basic machine tools knowledge.

So, you know, that wouldn't necessarily get them off the streets.

I had suggested to one of our senators back after the Las Vegas shooting with the bump stocks that the simple solution around the bump stock issue, which basically effectively turns one of these rifles into a machine gun, is to classify them as class three firearms like we do with machine guns and sub-machine guns.

You wouldn't ban them, but you'd have a licensing system for them and they did not go in that direction.

They tried to ban them, which was struck down by the Supreme Court.

So I think part of the lesson here is that when we talk about banning things, that's when people tend to dig in and we wind up getting nowhere.

We should talk about the processes of how people obtain firearms, getting better information about what people's intentions are.

We've talked about that.

Some of it's already been done.

Information that we would have loved to have before some of these shootings, like what someone was planning to do.

A lot of these people pass background checks.

In fact, almost all of them passed background checks when they were purchasing their firearms that they then wrought mayhem with.

And I think it just speaks again to how much work we have to do in that system.

- Another hot button issue, perennial hot button issue, abortion.

During your primary, one of your opponents, as well as the National Democratic Group who are now backing your campaign, they criticized your past record on abortion.

And in particular, they pointed to a vote in the legislatures 20-some years ago about a bill that would require doctors to tell a woman the gestational age of their fetus before she had an abortion.

Explain that vote to me now.

- Sure.

Well, my record is pretty clear.

I've always been pro-choice.

And at the time, you know, I've been approached by some folks about the issue.

They're looking for an amendment.

I said, "Look, I don't support the bill."

But out of respect, you know, I watched the vote.

It was going down 89 to 53 and I wanted to build a bridge in my community.

And it was, the bill failed, it went nowhere.

But then now 30 years later, it comes up as part of my record.

And I've explained that.

You know, it was something I was paying attention to my constituency.

It did not affect my choice record.

In fact, I spoke with the choice committee at the time and they asked about it and I told them where I was.

He said, "If we needed you, you'd be with us?"

I said, "Absolutely."

So you know, that's a lesson.

You know, your votes are always on the record and you have to answer for them.

And I've answered for that.

And, you know, like I said, I've gotten the endorsements of, you know, Planned Parenthood nationally and in the state, and I feel very comfortable with my position on choice.

And I'd always defend a woman's right to choose.

- So we only have a couple minutes left here.

Time goes by pretty fast.

So a few quick hit questions.

Should the US continue to support weapons and military support to Ukraine?

- Oh, absolutely.

I mean, Ukraine is fighting for its survival now.

And I think what we've seen from Vladimir Putin is that if he is successful in Ukraine, the odds are he won't stop there.

And it looks like he's trying to rebuild the map of Czarist Russia and recreate the Russian Empire, or at least the Soviet Union.

And we have too many allies who would not be able to defend themselves against a Russian onslaught that we should stop Russia in Ukraine and get them out of Ukraine.

So we should definitely support them.

- And how about Israel?

Should the US continue to plot and supply offensive weapons to Israel?

- I think given what's happening in the turmoil in Gaza and the Middle East, I think if we paused or stopped shipping offensive weapons to Israel and bring people to the peace table, that would be a very productive thing to do.

We need to stop the killing in Gaza and work on a two-state solution and bring peace to the Middle East.

- So that's a yes, you would support- - Yes.

- Limiting.

Do you believe that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza?

- I don't go, I don't agree with the genocide equation simply because, you know, I have studied this.

I was on the State-Wabanaki Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which did come up with a finding of cultural genocide, something we worked very, very hard on for a long time.

And looking at the elements of recognized genocides, like what happened in Rwanda, Armenia, the Americas, the Holocaust, you see structures of planned government protocols to eliminate another people.

And I simply do not see that happening there.

So that's something that's been very controversial, but I don't think debating whether or not it's a genocide does anything to stop the violence there.

And I think that's what you need to focus on.

- Two more quick, hopefully yes or no questions.

Term limits on members of Congress, yes or no?

- Well, I don't think so because, you know, we've seen term limits in the legislature and it's been very, very corrosive to the institution.

And I think the term limits that are set that should be set by the voters as to how satisfied they are with their representation.

- And that's all the time we have.

Matt Dunlap, thanks for talking with us.

I'm Kevin Miller, on behalf of our media partners, the "Portland Press Herald" and News Center Maine, thanks for watching.

(lively music)